Analysis on where the US political parties sit on the spectrum of World politics, generally speaking the "far left" of AOC in the US sits closer to the Centre/Centre left in many countries in Europe 

Anarchy IS far right - if we look at the US politics, we have the republican right wing being anachists, and democratic party center-right (pretty much what the European right wing is), and if US had a faschist party, it would be the left wing party. Faschists are heavy with left wing politics, and the reason why faschism is non-existent i  today's world, is because the liberal democracies adopted faschist policies after WW2.

yeah I'm doing a bit of reading and getting mixed signals. in college I took Law and civics as my optional courses and the 'right = less government, left = more government' was the core tenets of it all. Anarchy is, at its core, the least government possible, yet I'm reading now that they're left? I don't quite get that. Something isn't adding up. must do more reading.

Keep in mind I'm Canadian. As I'm reading, it seems there's a bit of confusion about what right/left means in different parts of the world.

I think that's a common definition among a lot of Americans, and probably the English speaking world in general. 

But that's not the distinction that most political science people would use. 

There's lots of different words that I've seen people use to describe left vs right: change vs tradition, supporting or opposing a hierarchy is a pretty defining one.

The big reason why people say that anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist, is because capitalism demands a hierarchy (people with more money have more power), and anarchy isn't so much about there not being a state, but not having a hierarchy whatsoever.  An anarcho-capitalist isn't demanding there be no hierarchy, just that instead of a state, the hierarchy is perpetuated by an elite class. Kind of cutting out the middleman of elected officials.  

If Elon takes Twitter and makes it so that anyone who seems to be on the (far) left gets kicked off and silenced, because enough users are complaining, that would be wrong, for example.

You can't really argue community guidelines, because those change depending on who's in charge, and we all know they'll change at Twitter, potentially vastly, once Elon is in charge. So were the old guidelines wrong, or will the new guidelines be wrong?

This is why the free market and capitalism are both so great and so terrible. It allows for businesses like Twitter to exist, and it also allows them to be purchased and changed. Which is better or worse depends on your personal outlook.

You know there are laws about certain speech, but few laws, as the more speech you can justly allow, the better. There are also rights, both of which, including laws, aren't always upheld and aren't always punished as they should be. How do we fix that? More policing at different levels? Isn't that a bad thing?

I agree they will erase some lines, which is good, depending on what's erased. When you have people like Mark Zuck, admitting the FBI was giving him a heads up to squash upcoming stories that are likely misinformation, only to find out they were always legit, that's a big deal and needs to be fixed. The way to fix it is to allow media to choose what to allow and what not to, without being pressured by the government or authorities, because that can go both ways.

You’re conflating two separate things. The US is called a Republic because its head of state isn’t a Monarch. It’s also a democracy because its government is from the people.

For example, countries like Sweden, the UK, Denmark are not republics because their heads of state are monarchs, while countries like Germany, France, and the US are republics because their heads of state are not monarchs. At the same time, all six of these countries are democracies.

Think for a second. And sorry but every system requires active effort to be protected. If you don't stop anti democratic movements, your democracy will die pretty quickly. You don't like democracy if you won't do the bare minimum to protect it. 

People need to learn political theory. Left isn't less government and right isn't more government. Thats not how this works. The point is about how they handle policies and hierarchies and rigidness and a lot of factors. This is like the meme "socialism is when government does stuff and communism is when it does more stuff". That's a joke we make to make fun of people who don't understanding political and economic theory. And there isn't variation across the globe its the same. Anarchists are far left in US, pakistan, Japan, Ethiopia, Russia, Spain, Australia, etc. Fascism is far right anywhere. Anarchism is about flattening hierarchies, socialism is about workers owning the means of production, Communism is about the removal of state, money and class, liberalism is the enlightenment values and differing opinions of that make you a socdem, liberal, neoliberal, neoconservative, con, and that state and all of them are capitalist in mode of production. Fascism was defined by humberto eco's 14 points, libertarianism and "anarcho-capitalism" are things that can't work and will fall apart. Monarchism and those far right things are usually about serfdom and the like. That is true monarchism.

So yeah left wing if you could make it seem as simple as possible is about moving forward towards flattening hierarchies and right wing is about enacting more and more hierarchies even going back towards the most hierarchic system humanity ever had aka serfdom and slavery.

I didn't think of the need to at the time as it seemed obvious to me. You misunderstood. So I gave more detail. Are we clear now?

You never explained what Elon said that was a problem. That was my best guess. I need more detail. Apparently we both do.

Maybe you should go look at my last post in the Official Politics OT, and try to explain how it led to me being banned from that thread.

The US Politics |OT| (vgchartz.com)

I'll save you some time. I had been using conversative viewpoints with that individual, which eventually led to that innocent final post I got banned for.

Yes, spreading misinformation can get people killed, like with the vax, but some others who weren't viewing or hearing misinformation, still were injured or died from the vax anyway, so how much of a roll does misinformation play with those deaths then?

Driving with a seatbelt could save your life, but could also get you killed. If your car flips and starts on fire and you're trapped due to your seatbelt, does that mean seatbelts are a problem and should be removed? Obviously not. Most of the time the seatbelt will save you from injury or death, so it's better to have them, but what should be optional is wearing them. Being forced to wear one could save you, or kill you. Just like allowing people to choose whether or not to get jabbed. Just like allowing what may or may not be misinformation on media.

I think Paatar would agree from earlier in this thread about minorities. Treated so poorly they quit posting. I found that quite sad.

Yes AND a democracy.